Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
I don't understand why there should be a difference in tracking ability between MM and MC given the fact that both of them use wire suspension such as Technics P100 or 205 and coils on cantilever and magnets on cantilever have same weight why there should different moving mass or compliance.

I just checked my Yamaha MC-1S on AT1010 tonearm tracks perfectly +15db inner 300hz band on 2nd side of HiFiNews test record.

I have another very compliant MC: Highphonic MC-R5, it tracks everything perfectly at 1.0 gram.
Siniy, most MCs use both a wire suspension and rubber donut (one-way, two-way, even three-way dampers have been used).

Some MMs used both a wire suspension and rubber donut (one-way in every case that I am aware of), but many didn't use any suspension wire. Only the rubber donut.

Most cartridge designers that I have spoken with (including some retired as well as some still active) seem to agree that leaving out the suspension wire tends to assist tracking and stresses the tonearm less (high compliance feeds less mechanical energy into the tonearm), at the cost of inferior transduction accuracy (due to a less well defined pivot point).

Regarding the effects of the mass of the moving coil or moving magnet, the effects are not so pronounced compared to tip mass, because the coil or magnet mass is located very close to the suspension pivot.

Also, there were substantial variations in coil or magnet mass, particularly with the MCs.

The moving coil part (MCs) consists of wire wrapped around a core, while the moving magnet part (MMs) should consist of an Alnico (usually) or a rare-earth (seldom) magnet. And in either case we need to consider the materials and their specific densities.

Among magnets for MMs, Alnico has a specific density of about 7.3, SmCo about 8.3, NdFeB about 7.5. The common way to reduce magnet mass is simply to make it smaller, and accept whatever reduction in output voltage this would cause.

Among core materials for MCs, iron has a specific density of around 7.8, ruby 4, aluminum 2.6, most plastics under 2, carbon fiber 1.75. Quite a variety.

With MCs we have to add the coil material, since this will also affect the moving mass. Platinum 21.5, gold 19.3, silver 10.5, copper 8.92. All quite massy.

The notable exception is aluminum, but the only cartridge to use this was Denon's DL-1000. Unfortunately, Denon quickly took the DL-1000 off the market when they discovered fatigue cracking of the aluminum and subsequent coil failures. They reintroduced it as the copper-coiled DL-1000a. Incidentally, the designer was the same person as with your Highphonic MC-R5 (low-mass Ogura PA line-contact stylus, ruby cantilever, copper coils, nylon core).

Your MC-1S used a printed-circuit coil, suggesting a low-mass plastic core with a copper conductor that was ultra-thin.

hope this was of some interest, jonathan carr
Thanks you Jonathan.
This prompted me to search for description of Yamaha MC-1S construction.
This is automatic translation from Japanese.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://audio-heritage.jp/YAMAHA/etc/mc-1x.html&ei=N1ZDTtfGH7HUiAKl0eGvAg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://audio-heritage.jp/YAMAHA/etc/mc-1x.html%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DJEi%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divns

Quite unusual I would say....
Jonathan,
Thanks very much as always. The literature I have seen says the MC-1S (and X) had an air core. Were there any others besides the Victor and the MC-1S (and -X) which had similar printed coil construction?
Yo Travis:

>The literature I have seen says the MC-1S (and X) had an air core.

Yes, with a coil shape is a bit reminiscent of lollipops or Micky Mouse ears (really!). No yokes (polepieces), either.

>Were there any others besides the Victor and the MC-1S (and -X) which had similar printed coil construction?

JVC MC-1 in 1977, then the MC-2E, MC-L10, and MC-L1000. All were quite nice-sounding cartridges (particularly the MC-L10 and MC-L1000). In fact, it may be interesting for you to compare your MC-L1000 with the EPC-100MkIV, using the Pioneer headamp (smile).

BTW, tracking force is quite critical with these JVCs. Although it's been a while since I last used an MC-L1000, my memory is that you could clearly hear 0.05g variations in the tracking force.

Then Yamaha's MC-1S, MC-1X (1978). It's been too long since I last heard one to comment meaningfully on the sound.

m-a-y-b-e some of Satin's M-21 series.

These Satins used what were described as "spiral planar coils" which were made of aluminum ribbon 10microns (0.01mm) thick. I don't know if these coils were wound or photo-etched. Never took one apart.

http://www2.masashi.ne.jp/ohta/satin/m2/m2.html

"Page 4" has all of the numerical data and specifications. 0.6mV output from a 12-ohm, air-core coil is pretty impressive efficiency, and the under 10-gram weight proves that no gargantuan magnet was used here (smile).

(check out http://www2.masashi.ne.jp/ohta/satin/satin.html if you want to learn more about Satin)

FIWW, rumor is that after JVC ceased production of the MC-1000, they tried to bring it back into production once, but had to cancel these plans because the production yield was unacceptably poor. They apparently couldn't get the production right twice, such was the difficulty of the design.

Apart from production difficulties, I would be hesitant of launching a printed-circuit coil MC along the lines of the JVCs, due to the likelihood for accumulated metal fatigue of the coil leadouts and eventual loss of signal. A real shame because the concept has obvious potential for even greater performance (than the MC-L1000).

hth, jonathan carr
Dear Raul, Thanks for your eloquent explanation but considering the fact that many of us are not 'experts', we need , I quess, such a simple 'quidance' like the test
records. From my experience I concluded that the MM carts are usualy better 'trackers' so I connected this 'fact' with the compliance. However I am very puzzled with those
LOMC's with a very low compliance. Some that I am familiar with will not track more then 50 micron. That is why I quess that 50 micron should be 'adequate' otherwise I don't
understand why such carts are produced at all. I have the same problem in the opposite 'direction': carts like Sonus, ADC, etc. with very 'high' compliance. Ie I don't understand why such carts are produced.

Regards,
Jcarr,

I was impressed by your clarification and just wondered if you could offer similar regarding the Glanz G7 cartridge?

Thanks, just in case
Siny:

Unusual indeed! I don't know of anything else like it. Yamaha's own later designs were nothing like the MC-1S/1X.

Good link that you provided (horrible translation, however!), with various useful information and insights to be extracted and analyzed.

Undoubtedly to reduce mass, the coils were made from vapor-deposited aluminum, less than 10 microns thick, two layers deep. I imagine that Yamaha used a silicon IC wafer, deposited an aluminum metal layer on it, and photo-etched the coils (Yamaha is a known semiconductor manufacturer). Probably thousands of coils were made from one wafer (at least hundreds).

However, aluminum work-hardens at a much more pronounced rate than copper or gold (for example), and is consequently far more likely to suffer from metal fatigue and eventual failure. The coil leadouts would be subjected to continuous flexing, due to the movement of the cantilever. That's why we see the comment about the coil leadouts being made of gold, and with silicon-rubber stress-reliefs.

Beryllium, as we know from the 1000M and its relatives, was something of a Yamaha specialty. Great material, but fell out of favor due to increasingly strict environmental regulations, and the increasing unwillingness of craftsmen to work with the nasty stuff. I don't think that the manufacture of beryllium would be looked upon too favorably in Japan today. Maybe you could get some processed in an environmentally lax country, or at a manufacturer with military exemptions.

With a straight beryllium cantilever, you could make the beryllium as a continuous rod or wire in one go, then shut down the processing line as soon as you had something of sufficient length (which wouldn't take a long time). Tapered beryllium cantilevers, OTOH, means that each cantilever was fabricated one by one through vacuum vapor deposition methods, which would take a lot more time, and be a lot more unfriendly to the environment.

The magnetic circuit is a repulsion type, rather than the far more common attraction type. The other cartridge manufacturer who used repulsion-type magnetic circuits and became well-known for them was Sony.

The suspension is piano wire, which suggests that Yamaha at this time had not yet gotten aboard the high-compliance band-wagon which was being espoused by Denon. In the early 1980s, Yamaha incorporated high-compliance suspensions in a major way, and you can see it in their use of multi-strand soft-annealed metal suspensions, or in extreme cases, non-metal fiber suspensions. IIRC, Yamaha then reverted to a more medium-compliance suspension in their MC-100 (1985).

The comment about not needing grease is particularly interesting. It's a shot fired en passant against the Satins, which were known to use grease as part of their damping. This grease attracted dirt, which could foul up the movement of the coils, and the blob of grease was also known to change shape due to gravity. If you were a veteran Satin owner, you kept two cartridges, and moved one into storage upside-down so that gravity would move the grease back where it was supposed to be!

hope this was of interest, jonathan carr
Hi Jonathan,
I think the MC-L1000 is quite decent already. I would agree about the VTF sensitivity but given it's construction, it really isn't surprising. Been there done that with the head amp - the combination is wonderful. Going to be re-mounting one this week on the new tonearm.

I think it's a GREAT idea for a cart designer to have a crack at making a modern version... Hmmm... I wonder where we could find a cart designer who knew how they were built...

Offhand... Trying to think how one might improve it... Coil/lead rigidity is an obvious place, stronger magnet another? Bett body material?
Dear Siniy123: I owned your Yamaha and own the DL-100a that's a very high compliance cartridge for a LOMC one, this along other LOMC high compliance Ortofon MC2000 are the only LOMC cartridges that pass my tracking tests.
My Highphonic MC-A6 ( Highphonic was founded by ex-Denon engineers as J.Carr states. ) is a high compliance too but has some trouble about all in all a good tracker too.

Btw, J.Carr I like very much my Victor ( JVC. ) L-1000 either in its dedicated beautiful black/grey ceramic Victor headhsell or in a standard headshell and yes is very sensitive to VTF changes but even that is very good performer ( average(-) tracker. ) IMHO not only the 100Cmk4 out performed but other top MM/MI too, of course that's in my system and with my own music/sound quality performance priorities.

J.Carr thank you to put " light " on that subject as always your knowledge level is welcomed.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Siniy123: I forgot. As always you shows that you are a King on the net with that Yamaha link: good.

Raul.
not owning the big shot Victor L1000 but I have JVC MC-2E, which I think is excellent. I think it works better on relative heavy and stable tonearm. Very visceral and open sound. Work good on L-07D.
Dear Nandric: According with Ortofon: """ A value of 50-60um will be sufficient to obtain playback of all conventional recorded records with out distortion. Only especial test and demostration records are recorded with greater groove modulation in the low frequency range. " """"

" with out distortion ", this is the key sentence where you and me ( today ) can't confirm because we don't know if 60um cartridge ability is enough for the tip does not run " jumping " in the grooves.

Ortofon own cartridge specs states cartridges with 100um on that 315hz test that's impressive but my take is still what we need for the stylus tip be always in touch with the groove.
in the other side we have to remember that is not enough that 60um spec but we need the velocity cm/sg because 23 cm/s is way different that 25 cm/sg on the same kind of test.

Anyway, my main target does not change: the better the cartridge tracking ability the better quality performance that means lower distortions and more music.

Btw, normally we are more sensitive to cartridge tracking distortion at the other frequency extreme at the highs and here according with Ortofon too:

"""" In the treble range it is the effective tip mass ( and not compliance. ) that determines tracking ability.
A 10khz tone can be recorded so powerfully in a record that the cartridge has to made accelerations of more than 2,000 G!!!!! in order to reproduce correctly ( Astronauts experienced an acceleration of only 7 G when their rockets take-off from the earth's surface. ) . To be abble to perform those rapids movements the stylus must have a minimum of mass. """""

My example with the Nagatron non-9600 was confirmed but what Ortofon states. I said in its current status the Nagatron is a poor tracker and all that " vivid "/exiting/dynamic performance are only distortions due to its very low tracking ability at both frequency extremes.
The sound on this cartridge does not flows free like in other top cartridges that shows lower tracking distortions but the sound came along a tiny roughness instead to flow smoothly and we can hear it trhough any accurate audio system. Way before I run my tracking tests I knew the Nagatron don't pass it as happened. Only for the records: in two different tonearms, two different headshells, 1.25 grs and 2.0 grs on VTF the non-9600 can't reproduce any single of the 16 cannon shots on the Telarc 1812, this is a poorer tracking ability due to a wrong stylus tip/compliance/suspension assembly. Right now my Nagatron is in the " hurt list " waiting for its trip to fix it.

This whole cartridge tracking ability is critical, crucial and determine in many ways what we are hearing in the recorded LPs.

Many of us can't even imagine the very hard task that a cartridge has trying to follow a road with suddenly and random obstacles of many kinds through the non-perfect recorded grooves.

Of course that the tonearm has its own contribution for help or not or complicate the hard cartridge task. Almost no tonearm designers cares in deep about and I think and hope that this fact could be fix it in the very near future.
Well, it is only a hope because right now the AHEE where we all belongs are promoting the 12" and longer tonearms that goes against that main cartridge task. The cartridge needs not only low bearing tonearm friction but fast " answer " from the tonearm to the tracking cartridge needs as faster the tonearm " re-action/answer " as better the cartridge tracking ability and IMHO a 10" tonearm makes this critical job ( everything the same ) way better than 12" or longer pivoted tonearms.
But, audiophiles are " die for " 12" and longer tonearms that the only " adavantage " is that " helps " to increment DISTORTIONS of every kind and that does not help to the cartridge task.

We have several of those audiophiles in this thread and all we know how they praised those long tonearms.

Gentlemans/Nandric don't make mistakes/misunderstood: IMHO the STAR/KING on the analog experience is the PHONO CARTRIDGE, period: all what is surrounded it are only " slaves " that the STAR/KING needs to be " alive ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Siniy123: The L1000 ( limited edition. ) is a low compliance cartridge lower that I like it but even that performs very good in heavy and medium efective mass tonearms.

IMHO the L-1000 could be a more sphisticate/polite cartridge with no that visceral sound you are talking but yes with an open sound. Your L-07D could be a good " friend " for it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul,
Could you explain why a longer arm - one which is 10-20% longer than a 10-inch arm - necessarily increases 'distortions of every kind'? Is it that the longer armwand necessarily increases distortion based different/increased resonance? Also, I understand the benefit of low bearing friction but I am not sure what you mean by a fast 'answer' from the tonearm. In my understanding, the tonearm is supposed to hold the cartridge where it is supposed to be.

I am currently very much enjoying using a 10.5" tonearm but wondering whether the 12" version would necessarily be worse...

Hi T_bone, The longer the distance between the stylus and the bearings, the slower the arm responds to the stylus/cartridge movements. MOI (moment of inertia) gets worse with increasing arm length. The advantage of reduced tracking angle error is slight compared to arms of around 9.25" and longer. Many feel that somewhere between 9 and 10.5" is optimal.
Regards,
the slower the arm responds to the stylus/cartridge movements.
I thought the arm should be 'neutral'.......allowing the stylus to perform all the movements unhindered?
If the arm "responds"........ Information must be added or subtracted n'est pas?
Fleib,

I am not sure who is the "many" who "feel" that between 9 and 10.5" is optimal. I would be interested in understanding the math of why they may feel that way though...

If we assume, for a second, that the record is stamped correctly (around the spindle hole), how much is the arm supposed to "respond" to stylus/cartridge movements on a micro basis? My answer is "very little." The arm is supposed to pivot on its bearings to allow the cartridge to travel across the record and therefore I can understand bearing friction/stiction being an issue. I am not sure I see moment of inertia being that significant an issue, especially for low-compliance carts - it is more an issue of matching the horizontal compliance of the cart to the moment of inertia.

The moment of inertia issue starts impacting playback MUCH more significantly on off-center records because the tracking "center" is moving back and forth. However, this too is a matter of matching horizontal compliance of the cart with the effective mass of the arm. Too low a compliance cart combined with too low a moment of inertia and we start having playback problems (imagine, for a moment, an arm with zero inertia and zero bearing friction) so there truly is an offset.

Does anyone have a mathematical answer for where that offset is, so that one can demonstrate that with increasing tonearm length, in order to have an equally appropriate "response" time (and I'm still not sure I like the concept of 'faster' response time being the right wording - I think it is probably more like 'appropriate force'), the optimal effective weight decreases by X?

This sounds like a question for Mark Kelly...
Dear T_bone: First reason is what Fleib posted and this is critical and makes a paramount difference against a shorter tonearm. For a cartridge nano-seconds of tonearm delayed response could means " hours " at our dimension, we have to think on the microscopic tip " dimension "/stage where it works with those terrific kind of acceleration of 2k G and the random changes of direction in any direction: the carrtridge asking tonearm response is something of " live or die " stage and 2" longer distance between stylus tip and tonearm bearing are for the cartrridge needs as " 2k km. " for us.

In the other side there are at least two other reasons for increasing distortions, one is that resonances increase with more distance ( threough the arm wand. )and needs a better specific damping that affect in different ways the carrtruidge signal performance, other reason is that the signal has to " advance " more distance through tonearm wires where lose its integrity and where there is more chance to be contaminated: we have to remember that at this stage the cartridge signal is un-amplified with very low output that makes it very sensitive and delicate even for 2" additional distance. There are other issues in there.

Now, all those disadvantages in change of what? there is no clear advantage in a longer tonearms and the in theory lower tracking error is only that because in the very first moment that the stylus hit the LP grooves and due to the fully imperfect medium that in theory advantage came almost to cero advantage.

IMHO and through several experiences with different tonearms that 12" advantage myth is only that a myth supported for the AHEE I can say for the worst part of the darkness of the AHEE that through deceit we honest and in good faith people are making money: corrupted money.

T_ bone as I learn more as I'm more dissapointement of what I learned through the AHEE where today I know 70%-80% of what " I learned " are un-true statements un-true/false facts deceit on porpose myths and the like.
Unfortunately almost all audiophiles still believe on what they learned through the AHEE because I think it is a confortable seat to see the show instead to be protagonist of that high-end show, pity for say the least.

Think for a moment that the AHEE decide stop to deceit us an begin to be honest and truer than ever: can you imagine what could happen with our today high-end status that was developed under arguably circumstances? could you imagine what could happen when the AHEE start to talk and teach about DISTORTIONS, MEASUREMENTS, ACCURACY, TRUE NEUTRALITY, INDUSTRY STANDARDS TO ACOMPLISH BY EVERY AUDIO MANUFACTURER AN REVIEWERS, STANDARDS WORKING AS REFERENCE FOR ANY COMPARISON AUDIO ITEMS and leaving the today " stupid " SUBJECTIVITY only as a second " side ".

This subjectivity promoted by the AHEE is the culprit of our whole audio/music ignorance that permit we live deceited for the dark side of the AHEE in favor not of the music or in favor not of we customers but in favor only of that AHEE heavy corrupted dark side.

Fortunately exist the white side on the AHEE and even that is smaller one is the one that I hope can have the " weight " to improve and develop the AHEE from what we have today.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Halcro: The arm should be neutral but in real world is not neutral and that's is the issue.

T_bone, the whole subject is not only mathematical but IMHO first than all to take a real picture of what is happening nano-second by nano-second down the stylus tip running on the groove to analyze the stylus tip needs and what is asking for from the tonearm.
The task is to create a model on computer ( scientific/mathematical. ) where all those true/real cartridge needs are taking in count and only to define in precise way these cartridge needs is a hard work/proccess way before we can go on with the tonearm relationship and tonearm ideal effective length.
I don't know and can't remember of some one that already attempted to research and develop on the whole subject, I wish some one could do it. Not an easy task considering the unknow " road " on each music recorded LP track that the stylus tip have to " translate " with full accuracy.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Raul,
If we filter out everything you said about AHEE and the rest, what you are saying is that..,
1) the stylus-end of the tonearm is supposed to 'react' (i.e. move) when the stylus is moving. If the stylus is moving side to side, then the 'perfect' arm will react/move 'faster' and will, ideally, move side-to-side with the stylus. This is the advantage of lower moment of inertia combined with lower bearing friction/stiction.
2a) longer tonearm wands resonate 'more',
2b) longer tonearm wands require 'better specific damping' that necessarily affect cart performance negatively,
3) longer tonearms require the very tiny analog signal to pass through an extra length of wire, to the detriment of maintaining a truly accurate signal.

My responses would be:
1) This is, as far as I can tell (from my completely non-AHEE and still layman physics education about turntable/tonearm/cart/cantilever/stylus/groove physics), completely wrong. If the theory were right, then the ultimate tonearm would have zero mass and zero bearing friction. This would leave us with no music.
2) I am not sure about this one. I don't know the physics here exactly, but a tonearm is effectively a span, a bridge if you will, with structural 'supports' at the stylus and the pivot/bearing. In my understanding of the physics of span resonance, longer spans don't resonate 'more', they resonate differently. Again, I am not certain of the physics, but I think that most good tonearm wands will seek to reduce resonance through materials selection, damping, interfaces, and appropriate force-matching rather than through shortening the armwand.
2b) no comment here. I haven't thought about it enough yet.
3) I think this one is a bit over the top. If we are worrying about the extra 3cm of tonearm/phono cable degrading the tiny signal, we have a very, very, high-quality problem (i.e. we have solved every other problem out there. I would say in a practical sense, this issue is non-existent for MMs as well.

All of this assumes, of course, a record centered around the spindle hole...
Dear Raul,
I can't really follow your explanation why longer arms should produce more distortion. maybe you can explain this is in short if you like.
I am a bit puzzled hearing from you that the rewiring of your SAEC arms did not lead to good results. We will be not able to find out what was the reason herefore in your system but I can tell you from my experience if it is well done it is a big difference and not one with more distortion - not at all. Maybe you should try again - just a suggestion.

Best & Fun Only
This is an interesting topic...
T_Bone - with regards to item 1) Lower moment of inertia with near zero friction...
Isn't that exactly what was being aimed for in the best arms of the late 70's and early 80's? The High Compliance is King era?
Like everything in analogue perfection is impossible - but there were (are) arms that achieve effective mass of under 6g... and a number that achieve around or under 4g. - I would assume that along with an effective mass of that level will come a much lower moment of inertia.

Lower bearing stiction I agree with - but lower friction not necessarily as a level of damping is valuable in assisting the control of the arm/cartridge resonances - it does need to be the right kind of friction.

And this is where we come up with the theoretical impossibilities - best from one perspective is zero friction, but achieving that will exacerbate another aspect (arm/cartridge resonance) so you either design some friction into the system or you design it as a minimum friction system and then attach an artificial friction system (fluid/servo damping).

With regards to a longer arm... the resonant frequencies will be altered - so differing arm damping solutions will be required - the more damping is applied (and I am talking HF damping rather than the LF fluid damping) - the more mass is added to the arm. - Another case where the gain of reduced tracking error through arm length needs to be balanced with increased mass which causes a different set of issues.

You can of course balance the increased mass with lowered compliance - but then you tend to also lower tracking ability at lower frequencies (more swings and roundabouts!)

I hate to say it but the vinyl world was, in the early 80's, racing towards linear tracking systems.... only to hit the brick wall of digital. The funding for R&D dried up overnight, leaving boutique development (which has not ceased, but rate of change/progress is very very low)
a) With linear tracking angular tracking error becomes a non issue.
b) with linear tracking the arm length can be minimal and therefore the arm mass can be reduced (eg: Revox Linatrack... the headshell is the arm!). Keeping in mind that a linear tracking arm transport can pivot or be positioned to travel directly over the record surface (like the many clamshell TT's with the arm in the lid, or the Revox) allowing vestigial arms.
Many current linear trackers have long(er) arms (and therefore higher mass) due to the arm tracking system residing off the record.

If we are talking about the ideal arm for some of the sophisticated cartridge - and aiming for high tracking capabilities, etc....
Why are we talking about prehistoric pivoted arm designs (flame proof armor activated...). Yes, crocodiles are a successful prehistoric dinosaur that survives to this day... but I'll take a predatory mammal as my preferred and more advanced/evolved choice. (and yes I know I am playing very loose with evolutionary concepts.... it's just a metaphor playing on common evolutionary mythology of linear "progress")

Why not instead discuss the ways to select, design, build or optimise a linear tracking arm - it is a better starting point ultimately for a perfect design.

Also the patents for all the great linear tracking arms of the 70's and 80's have all expired - all this technology is sitting out there begging for someone to use it!
And some of these patents include designs for systems that were never commercialised - and which were too difficult to commercialise without advanced digital control systems - which are now very economical.
eg: JVC patented a method of correcting for record centering (a la Nakamichi Dragon CT) - but using platter speed control in combination with arm mounted sensors... (ok not a directly relevant "arm" example, and it would require a very special kind of platter drive, with very precise speed control and perhaps a lower mass platter for rapid response - an interesting engineering approach which went off on a complete tangent from everything else....fascinating!!)
Revox had an electro-magnetic arm servo damping system described and patented for the Linatrack arm - never produced.
And there are the Linear tracking Sony biotracers - all that complex circuitry would now be built into a couple of digital control chips - making it simple and economical...
etc...

I look at this and I think that the whole discussion is talking about how to improve a dinosaur - a very effective dinosaur - but we have better starting points today than were common in the 70's.

bye for now

David
Hi T_bone, When most of us conceptualize tracking we probably think of the cartridge (tip) in two dimensions at a time. In reality tracking is three dimensional. The cartridge and arm are constantly moving both horizontally and vertically. Thinking only in terms of compliance (springiness) is not adequate for understanding.

***This is, as far as I can tell (from my completely non-AHEE and still layman physics education about turntable/tonearm/cart/cantilever/stylus/groove physics), completely wrong. If the theory were right, then the ultimate tonearm would have zero mass and zero bearing friction. This would leave us with no music.***

No one is talking about the "ultimate" tonearm. It doesn't exist. Within the confines of real world record playing there are advantages and disadvantages with longer arms. The advantages are slightly lower tracking angle error and reduced SRA/VTA differences with warps. The disadvantage is worse MOI. I'm sure you're aware of the advantage of an underslung counterweight with arms that have bearings above the plane of the record. Arm length can be seen as part of the same thing. There is an increased time constant between bearings and stylus with longer arms.
Regards,
Dear T_bone: Problem is that you think that the stylus is moving side to side only but movements ( the " system " is dynamic. ) down there are more than side to side but up an down too. There is a feedback from the tonearm because the tonearm is not floating but fix at the pivot. As I posted this whole subject needs more in deep research before we even can have a model/simulation to obtain conclusions.

There are several factors that has influence in the cartridge tracking ability and maybe a first step could be determine all these inside cartridge factors and then the ones cartridge is surrounded including the very wide differences between different LP tracks and where in the LP the cartridge is working. All in all complex and I don't know you but I have no answers this time.

Next week I will have a meeting with my friend that works in the Science area in the University of México and I will put on desk this subject and see if they could help me if I give him a TT/tonearm/cartridge set up to investigate what we are trying to find out. The University has all the resources/tools to make the work if this guy accept and have the time with his colleages then we could have something there.

About your third answer I think I don't understand it so weel. We all know that when we change the headshell wires ( 2". ) the sound changes so IMHO we have to worry having the short path need it to the cartridge signal in this unamplified stage: less is more here.

Now, I touch the tonearm issue because has influence in the cartridge tracking result but the main subject is to talk about the importance of the cartridge tracking ability and what we perceive as a result of different cartridge tracking ability levels.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I stipulate the following points and conditions:
1) there is no PERFECT arm.
2) Some arms are better than others (they introduce less distortion into a system) with a given cart.
3) when discussing a 'better' design WITHOUT KEEPING OTHER FACTORS CONSTANT (such as cart or cart compliance) I assume it is universally better, not just better with a fixed compliance.
4) All discussions assume the record is flat and not off-center.

Dear Raul and Fleib,
I did not mention the 'third dimension' because I thought it obvious. Styli move up and down and left and right. Tonearm pivots do too. Assuming the record is perfectly flat AND the record is perfectly-centered, the reason why tonearm pivots MUST move from side to side is to track from outer groove to inner groove. The reason why they MUST move up and down is because the record is cued up and down. Carts have both vertical and horizontal compliance. Compliance is a force. Music is neither constant in frequency nor amplitude so the cantilever applies all kinds of fast-moving forces at the cantilever pivot. That's the point. Nobody has yet explained why the stylus end of the tonearm is SUPPOSED to move WITH the stylus. If it does, a 'better' tonearm (one which most closely approximates perfect even though there is no perfect) will move with the same speed as the stylus will. This means the cantilever/magnet/coil is not moving in relation to the body/coil/magnet. This means no music.

Raul,
Regarding my 3rd point, I think discussion of length of tonearm wire as different than changing headshell wires and observing a difference. The 'improvement' of shortening a tonearm from 12" to 9" in order to shorten the length of wire that a tiny wire passes through is just as easily accomplished by shortening the phono cord at the RCA end. I do not think that the tonearm-shortening effort has a measurable impact on signal accuracy because of less wire.

Fleib,
I understand the underslung counterweight. I do not see the connection with arm length. I see the potential that longer arms have a higher MOI. I have not heard/seen any answer yet as to why a higher MOI is NECESSARILY bad.

David,
This DOES get interesting. Just because 'high-compliance-is-king' existed does not mean that it actually was theoretically better. And the fact that we now start talking about levels of compliance - i.e. levels of force - in combination with lower levels of arm effective mass means we can also say that lower compliance necessitates higher MOI.

Your idea of 'encouraging' some level of friction vs stiction in order to counter resonance, or using fluid damping, is all an effort to provide an 'increase' in force countering the forces applied on the tonearm by the forces applied by the cantilever on the cantilever pivot point where it 'meets' the cart body. They are all raising "Effective MOI." This goes to my point above, that tonearm designers/users will seek to control resonance a variety of ways. Chief among those will be correct matching of forces (i.e. APPROPRIATE MOI, not LOWEST POSSIBLE MOI).

I understand why some people say low compliance carts track badly. I view it as the fact they have not used the appropriate arm. I do not find my lowest compliance carts track particularly badly.

Regarding your point (b) on linear tracking arms.... Assuming the arm length is as short as the headshell (which is mounted on a linear bar/rail/trough/air bearing), how does one set appropriate MOI assuming an EXTREMELY low lateral friction? Does one want the lowest possible MOI? The highest? Or the appropriate amount to counter cantilever force on the bearing connection? One certainly does not want the lowest possible weight of cart body with lowest possible friction with a cantilever compliance lower than the highest humanly possible.

Have I got this all wrong? Should my beloved FR-7f be cracked open like a lobster, mounted on a balsa shell and mounted on my AT1100 with a gold nugget stuck on the counterweight?
Dear Fleib,
I am not sure what you mean by 'time constant between bearing and stylus'. Is it measurable or definable in any way? The headshell of a long arm takes exactly the same time to move from outer groove to inner groove as the headshell on a short, low MOI, arm.
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " I losed the " exiting and dynamic " ( WOW factor. ) that I had before that wire changes.
Fortunately I did not desesperate and followed through more days listening my system till my ears " accustom " to the lower distortions. " ++++

this is what I posted on the SAECs and what I mean is that the higher distortions ( " exiting and dynamic" / WOW factor. ) I had before the re-wire change were loosed ( fortunately. ) but because I was unaware of this distortion subject I was disapointement but after few days running the SAEcs with lower distortion ( because better wires. ) I accustom to this lower distortions and that was a learning lesson and a way that high and low distortions manifest and our perception of it.
The experience SAECs re-wire were a success in those times. In the other side today I almost don't deal any more with 12" tonearms, my experiences with tell me is not the best way to pick up what is in the recording with the lowest distortions we can. Of course that I'm following in this " research "/12" subject and maybe things could change in the future.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: The subject that I mentioned about SUBJECTIVITY was trying to imply that subjectivity as stand alone could means almost nothing if not came along with some objectivity content in the same case that objectivity can't have almost any " weight " with out subjectivity content.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul, We are used to talk about 'relationship'in binary constructions: 'one side versus the other'; 'subjective versus objective',etc. Frege put it this way: 'concept is an function with one argument, the relation are functions with two or more arguments'. Ie
why should we use only binary constructions? He also proposed to view the 'world of knowledge' as the 'third world'. The first world is of physical states; the second
of our psychology or mental states while the third is the
world of the contents of thought. When you post your thoughts they are expressed in sentences or propositions. As such they become for us 'objective' in the sense that we can think about them, reread them if we need to, interprete them and
value them in accordance to our own individual capabilties. Your statements have the physical representation in the writen shape. In this sense they are objective. We are interested in the objective content of your thoughts as expressed not in your psychology. This apply I think for all the post we read.
But because of the limitations inherent to the binary realtionship we get this 'paradox'. When we recognise your presupposed 'subjective thoughts' as 'our own' we need to
use the expression 'intersubjective' to refer to. Well 'intersubjective' is also called 'public' or 'common' and as such must be something that is objective.

Regards,
T-Bone - no don't crack open your previous FR-7.... taxidermise it, embed it a slab of perspex and put it on display in a museum case - with all the other dinosaurs.... then get a "modern" arm... (tongue firmly in cheek).

You are quite right, regardless of the approach everything needs to be designed to work together.
An ultra short ultra low MOI linear arm, would of course require an ultra high compliance cartridge, and preferably a very lightweight one.

So yes it is a question of appropriate MOI rather than small or large.

Regardless of the compliance and MOI level - there WILL be a resonance - given that it is a sprung system - and that is the nature of the beast. (unless you have perfectly flat records, and can therefore play them with an unsprung infinitely massy arm.... that is lala land material)
So you will always need various mechanisms to damp the resonances (even if they are well located and of relatively low amplitude, the resonance will always be there - and will be intermodulating with the desired signals - so it needs to be damped/controlled)

So 1) You need to have a properly chosen MOI to match compliance and other parameters of the system and 2) you need to have some form of damping to control the resonance.

But in selecting the appropriate MOI, and choosing which way to go - we should look at the advantages and disadvantages of Low vs High compliance designs.
Which may also include looking at the advantages and disadvantages of wire suspended cantilevers (usually low to mid compliance) to free moving cantilevers like the ADC's (usually high compliance.... exclusively high compliance?).

And obviously we need to discuss both lateral as well as vertical compliance.

And I think that discussion must begin with the cartridge and NOT the arm.... and going further, it must begin with the cantilever and its suspension and damping - and then work back from there. (possibly also including Platter/Mat as another source of damping that may influence the stylus)

Looking at it from my perspective - I think that the closest to ideal system has to be High and preferably very high compliance - free moving (no wire suspension) - and with an ultra light arm (lowest possible MOI) having minimum friction, with a controlled damping mechanism (I like servo damping, but fluid damping can also be controlled), in a Linear tracking arm...

And I can work through the logic of why I believe each of the selections to be the right ones in that list and in the right order within that list.

bye for now

David
Dear Dalolum: Yes, with the cartridge. Now that you bring here the linear tracking tonearm option to apivot one maybe is time that I can borrow from one of my friends a tangential one.

In the past my take was that in all of the oportunities that I had to heard linear tracking tonearms ( in my system and other systems. ) my main concern was that its low bass performance was a little on the " soft " way when in pivoted tonearms the bass response was with more grip/power and better foundation. In those times I did not tested cartridge tracking ability and could be interesting to test it and find out its performance against a pivoted one.

I don't have enough time to make these kind of tests but as soon I can I will try.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dlaloum,
the good thing is there are many ways to Rome. I had some experiments with ultra light arms too but when I was able listening to heavy arms I changed my preferences completely. If you have good matching carts with long heavy arms this is for me the King`s way - also reaching very very little distortion. But to speak with Nandric there is also a Kardinal´s way or even one of a lonely wandering priest...

best & fun only
Dear Lewm: My birthday is tomorrow and normally we have at my place a close fiends/family reunion that always every one comes because my wife prepare typical dinner from our birth town Oaxaca and this means: a very special cheese made in Oaxaca name it " quesillo ", black beans small " tamales ", " chapulines " that are cricket/fetters ( just delicious as everything. ) and the main meal: black Oaxacaqueño Mole ( in Oaxaca exist no less than 20 kind of Moles with a unique Oaxaca taste. Not all the Moles in different México regions taste the same. ) all these along Mezcal from Oaxaca and Mariachis.

Well, unfortunately for our normal guests, this time my granddaugther ( five years old. ) call me to tell that she wants to invite me to " feast " my day at the circus as a present by her to me and I can't refuse so tomorrow we will enjoy the Atayde circus and the party with our friends has to wait for another time.
Btw, last time I attended to an old fashion circus was at least 40 years ago.

Lewm my sincere thank's to you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I have questions, some of which I would like to direct to Raul, and others to whom ever has experience with the cartridges I want to discuss.
1) Hi Raul, I have a Ortofon M20FL that you have given a rating of 6/7. The M20e you have give a rating of 5. Is their sufficent enough difference between the 2 ratings to warrent replacing the "FL" stylus with the "e" version. Before you answer, let me say that I have had stylus changes (AT15sa to a AT20ss), that I could tell upon the 1st note that there was a meaningful improvement. I have also had stylus changes that unlike you, have taken me many hours of listening before I could decide that I prefered stylus "B" over stylus "A". Not that one was better than the other, but I just prefered one over the other.
2) I have a Signet TK7Ea with a broken cantilever. I have found one source that has the ATN-155LC stylus for sale ($285), that I could install on this. Other sources recomment that I use the AT440MLa stylus ($120). Then there is the Audio Technica AT-7V which if my sources are correct, say is the same cartridge as my Signet TK7Ea. LP Tunes has the whole cartridge and stylus listed for $129. Is their a perfered choice out of this bunch, that is truly better, or would we be just looking at different prefered colorations.
3) Many years ago, I wore out the stylus on a Empire 4000DIII and filed it away. I had stupidly moved onto MC's, buying into the hype at they were the better design. While reading this tread, I ran across a large section that talked about this cartridge and I understand that Raul gave it a 10+ rating. I found a Static 4000DIII replacement on ebay, and have since ressurected my Empire. I still haven't picked my chin up from the floor. This cartridge is 10 times better than what I remember. Because of this and other cartridges that I have tried, I have come to the conclusion that the whole range of cartridges that this thread has talked about were far better than the equipment (turntables, arms, and phono amps), that they were connected to! I dumped my Stanton 881s for a MC. Traded my Micro Acoustic 3002 for,----,I don't remember but I'm sure is was some so called latest and greatest MC. Sold my Grace F9! Someone please shoot me!!
3) I have a Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood, being a much hyped MM by the audio press, hasn't been discussed much here. Any reason why?
To throw in my 2 cents worth, I would like to say that I think it is a great cartridge, but not a great MM cartridge. To me, it sound alot like the MC's I have. Why would someone design a MM cartridge to sonicly mimic a MC. It just doesn't make since to me! More sales I quess?
4) Last but not least, the Adzen YM-P50vl. Is this a "P" mount only style cartridge? Can't seem to find one thats not!
I have picked up a Empire 4000DIII body mounted on a ELAC headshell. I have a Graham arm with extra wands, therefor I doubt if I would ever use this headshell. If someone would like to have this, I will send it to you (FREE).
A few responses re your questions to Raul:
(1) Is a rating of 5 better or worse than a rating of 6/7? I believe that Raul goes from low to high, so the FL would therefore be superior to the E in R's opinion. So why buy the E stylus?
(2) Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood may or may not be great. IMO, Clearaudio cartridges have a family sound. Maybe that's what you hear. It is not to my own personal liking. Anyway, this thread is heavily weighted toward vintage cartridges, which why you don't see much about the VW. Recently, Raul had some nice things to say about the Ortofon OM Black. Others have said good things about several of the current top line Grado MMs (or IMs) and the SoundSmith MI cartridges.
(3) The Azden is a P-mount that comes new with its own adapter. If you bought a used one, maybe you did not also get the adapter. On eBay you can buy P-mount adapters and they can be made to work with Azden, altho a little surgery to the adapter may be required.

Raul, You are right to indulge your grand-daughter, but clowns scare me, and I always worry that those trapeze artists will fall.
David,
You and I obviously agree on the physics regarding the principal 'reason' suggested above for why longer arms are 'worse' than shorter arms. The 'head' of the tonearm is NOT supposed to be 'responsive' to the cart's nano-movements. I also agree that in selecting 'appropriate' arm MOI one will usually 'start with' the cart/cantilever/sprung system (your point about platter/mat damping is good, and I would add there is an element of vinyl composition and probably of room temperature, for both the vinyl and the cart dampers).

I will grant you that there are strong theoretical attractions to a linear arm. I have used a couple of excellent old Japanese DD linear trackers (still have them). I am convinced that with a very short arm, flat/centered records, and a VERY frictionless bearing, one can obtain fantastic results. The 'practical limitations' of the arm/pivot mount and tangential arm bearing friction/resonance suggest to me you may be right about high compliance being more desirable in this case.

I do not come to the same practical conclusion with pivot arms. This may be due to my lack of experience. It may be due to the relatively low number of off-center records I play. I have tried dozens of carts in a dozen-plus (actually probably two-dozen-plus) arms (though not all possible combinations) over the past several years but I have not found the 'best possible arm' for high compliance carts. It may be that proper matching of MOI, cantilever/cart resonances, bearing and arm materials/interfaces trumps higher weight's impact on bearing friction/stiction. It may be that i have not come across a very lightweight arm which had the combination of extreme armwand rigidity, low structural resonance, and good bearings. It may be that those arms are not sufficiently damped. The best arms I have for the highest compliance carts I have in my stable are probably my EA-3 with straight arm, and my modded EPA-100Mk2. I have, in the past, also gotten superlative sound out of the Max-237 with some very high compliance carts, despite it's obvious weaknesses.
Thank you Lewm:

Now that you mention it, Raul does rate 1 thru 10 with 10 being highest. I should have realize that with his Empire 4000DIII rating that he has given as a 10+. Must have been a brain fart on my part! I also appriciate information on the Azden. I had passed on the Adzen because there was no mention or picture of the cartridge with the adapter. Knowing now that there are other alternatives (eBay P-mount adapters), I will grab the next one I find. Thanks again.
Happy birthday Raul.

T_bone, I think the problem is conceptual.
***I understand the underslung counterweight. I do not see the connection with arm length. I see the potential that longer arms have a higher MOI. I have not heard/seen any answer yet as to why a higher MOI is NECESSARILY bad.***
Within the context of any given arm mass, having the lowest possible MOI is desirable. The time constant refers to the length of the arm, cartridge to bearings. It is the amount of time it takes the bearings to respond to movements of the cartridge.

This is from Wikipedia:
"The moment of inertia of an object about a given axis describes how difficult it is to change its angular motion about that axis. Therefore, it encompasses not just how much mass the object has overall, but how far each bit of mass is from the axis. The farther out the object's mass is, the more rotational inertia the object has, and the more force is required to change its rotation rate."

The cartridge is constantly moving toward the center of the record. The axis is the arm bearings and the arm is the radius. In reality it's also tracking in three dimensions, so not only vertical movement is included but also angular movement. Stereo grooves are cut at 45 degrees. Thinking of the cartridge as stationary with the cantilever and tip doing all the movement, is incorrect. The body of the cartridge is constantly moving.

Compliance is not a force. It's a measure of springiness and describes how the suspension reacts. Whether you have a high mass/stiff cart or a low mass/springy cart, lowest possible MOI is desirable. Think of it in this case as arm bearing reaction time.
Regards,
Dear Fleib,
I understand the way a stylus moves in a stereo-cut groove and the way a cart body moves across the record. I understand the definition of MOI, and I understand the weakness of the wiki definition as it applies to the stylus end of a tonearm traveling across a record. It takes 20-odd minutes to cross 85mm (that's a whopping 4mm a minute) without, one hopes, ever changing rotational speed around it's pivot point (i.e. No change of rotation rate which would require a force applied against the MOI). To me that is a function of horizontal bearing friction, not vertical, and the MOI is a 'force' which offsets the 'force' of compliance (a 'springiness' is not a force in and of itself, but when the 'springiness' is applied to an immovable object (the record groove), the compliance exerts a force on the cart body at the cantilever pivot, and this force is therefore applied to that end of the tonearm span in a non-consistent way.

I do not see in any of this why MOI is the over-riding issue for why longer arms would be theoretically inferior than shorter arms with similar resonant qualities where the only difference was MOI.
Regards, Griffithds: While others are sorting out tonearms and Raul is celebrating (congradulations, Raul), may I field two of your questions?

Lewm (hi!, Lew) beat me to the easy one: The "P" in the Azden's designation denotes just that, a P-mount design.

The AT7V and the TK7ea share some characteristics but the carts differ in inductance and output impedance. Not much, just enough to give the 7V a little more apparency in the high end. The Signets' strength is in the mids/upper lows while still maintaining excellent attention to detail in the hf's. The ATN155lc on the TK7ea will bring the TK7ea's performance to approximate the very good TK7LCa. The AT7V, the AT120, the AT440MLa and a large handfull of other AT carts all share the same basic configuration but are of differing quality in their construction and elec. design. The Signets were promoted as having more attention to these details within each grouping.

The AT440MLa stylus on the Signet is slightly less resolving than the ATN155LC but if you should choose this alternative, the 440MLa is sometimes to be found in the $100 range by searching at Amazon.com. The AT440MLa is a higher output impedance cart and will need to be carefully loaded (there's been lots of advice about this on the AudioKarma forum) or it WILL sound exceedingly edgy. Both the AT7V and TK7ea @ 100-200pF, 47 through 100k Ohms res. at your discression.

The 440MLa: Output impedance, 3.2k Ohm, (1kHz). Coil inductance 490mH. Output, 4.0mV. Dynamic compliance, 10-6cm/dyne, 1.0-1.8gm VTF
The AT7V: Output impedance, 3.0k Ohm, coil inductance 500mH. Output, 5.0mV. Compliance, 7-6x10cm/dyne, 1.75-2.25gm VTF.
The Signet TK7ea/LCa: 900 Ohm, 550mH. Output, 5.0mV. Compl./ATN155LC, 16-6x10cm/dyne. Signet OEM: unknown but mfr. reco. at 0.8-1.6gm VTF, leaving off before the AT7V begins.

All are PCOCC coil windings, depending on listening objectives there is no reason one should not be pleased with any of the three. Requires meticulous attention to set up but I do enjoy the easy to listen to TK7LCa/ATN155LC on an EPA-250 (250mm eff. length, 12 gm. eff. mass) tonearm alot. This one, you can turn up the volume, it won't disappoint.

Peace,
Thank you Timeltel.
What a very informative reply you have presented. You have got me leaning towards the ATN155LC. Main reason being that they are quickly disapearing! The AT440MLa are readily available, so I could always get one of them later if the need arose. Nice to hear that any of the three would be great to live with. As far as setup, I would be running it thru a BAT VK10se, so loading would not be a problem. Thanks again!
Raul, Have a Good Birthday.

Griffithds,

you mentioned above trying the Empire 4000D with your Graham arm.
I like the Empire 4000D also though quickly found the cartridge too long for proper set up with the Graham Phantom alignment jig.
Currently I have the Empire mounted in a Yamamoto HS3 box wood head shell installed in a Micro Seiki 505s arm, what a surprise! Talk about bang for the buck...

T-Bone,

your Exclusive EA-3 including the Technics 100mk2 are unquestionably beautifully built tone arms which I'm happy you mention them being fabulous performers.
If you don't mind what type of mod was done to your EPA 100mk2 also have you kept the original wiring in both arms?
Griffithds: Stereoneedles has the at155lc stylus for significantly less than the price you state, so buy there instead if you go that direction. I bought mine from them. Also, the p-mount adapter I bought on ebay was a very mediocre solution to the problem I had with my Azden. I eventually bought a lower model azden just so I could have an original adapter. BTW: if you're looking to buy the ym p50vl, there's a NOS on audiogon right now. Good opportunity.
THANK YOU Banquo363!

I don't think I will sleep tonight. I bought both. The Adzen and the AT155LC stylus. It's starting to feel alittle like Christmas here!